Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

On his Sunday night program, Matt Drudge again mentioned the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann. Calling his act "phony", Drudge dismissed Olby and his overheated Special Education Komments as nothing but "camp", and we have the audio clip for your listening pleasure:

UPDATE: You can also listen to part of this audio on the Center for American Progress blog, Think Progress, which has seen fit to lift the clip from OW without attribution. The comments are amusing as you can witness the limits of liberal tolerance towards homosexuals. We all know, libs are very tolerant of all those people who agree with them. Just ask self-professed "attention whore", Cindy Sheehan, who has "quit" the anti-war movement after waking up to the fact that she was being used by the Democrats.

If you ever watched the Daily Show, which apparently you haven't, you 'd see what a mockery( it's not hard to do)

Yes, it's a mockery/comedy show NOT a news show.

As anyone over the age of about 10 knows, you can take clips of someone talking and by editing them out, make the person sound like he or she says something completely different than they actually did.

Stewart - as a comedian - and his staff - as comedy writers - take comments and statements by people (all kinds) and make fun of them.

They take them out of context, they selectively edit, they leave out parts.

Stewart admits they do this.

Because, again, he's a comedian doing a comedy show.

If you can't follow this, if you can't see the distinction between fact and fantasy then you need help big time.

And no one here can help you out. You need to sue your teachers for failing to educate you properly.

Jonathan Stewart on 60 Minutes two years ago:
"We don't consider ourselves equal opportunity anythings, because that's not - you know, that's the beauty of fake journalism. We don't have to - we travel in fake ethics," says Stewart.

Fake journalism. Fake ethics.

From Wikipedia:
"The show's writers often repeat the fact that The Daily Show is a comedy program and not a reliable news source by itself. The show does not follow normal rules of journalistic integrity....."

"According to Pew Research Center on their 2004 campaign survey, those who cited comedy shows as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds.....

This should end this silly debate.

But silly people believe in silly things.

So it won't.

According to Pew Research Center on their 2004 campaign survey, those who cited comedy shows as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds

You do have to admit that Jeff's idiotic tirade againt every major, credible news source tells us a great deal about him, how he got in his thinking to the place he is and how unlikely it is he will ever recover.

A key difference between a Jeff and a person Jeff thinks he is slandering by labeling liberal, is that the liberal has some understanding of informational sources. No liberal believes that Stewart, Colbert are anything but satirical. No liberal takes that as hard news. But the delusional Jeff thinks they do. If any dedicated liberal watches Olbermann, he or she knows that what is offered is commentary. But, the demented Jeff thinks the liberal believes he is watching hard news.

And, liberal turn to an entire universe of sources and analyze. Jeff needs to learn how to analyze, but he probably needs analysis even more.

So, is it any surprise that Jeff thinks that Drudge, the man who "called" 2004 for Kerry midafternoon on election day, that Hannity, who offers repeated "white girl gone missing" stories with occassional references to the "fact" that Saddam had WMD's offer hard and accurate news? Is it any surprise that he suffers from acute Wiener envy because Wiener feeds him that type of hatred Jeff wants to feel comfortable with.

The problem is Jeff doesn't want news, facts, information. He wants something he can relate to. He seeks affirmation of his own warped, limited world view because anything else is a threat to him.

The value of Jeff on a blog is that he gives us that example of everything we ought not to be. He carries every pathology we want to try to avoid. And, that is valuable.

Of course, that indicates we are using Jeff. And, we are. We use him because we find him a curiosity. We don't understand how anyone so ill-informed, so narrow can possibly function. The fact that we use him and can use him makes Jeff pathetic. And, that makes Jeff the poorest possible voice for any position he argues. If I were a terrorist-loving Olbyloon, I would take tremendous pleasure in Jeff arguing any opposing issue. Rational proponents of Jeff's position have to overcome a tremendous hurdle. Jeff makes the task of reasonable, informed people taking the opposing position much, much easier. For that, we should thank Jeff.

So, Jeff, thanks. Now go douse the charcoal with another can of gasoline and have a world-reknowned Wiener roast.

"According to Pew Research Center on their 2004 campaign survey, those who cited comedy shows as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates'
backgrounds"

People say "Stewart consistently and decisively skewers the president", and that is the case.

That's why there's no anti-Daily Show website (that I know of) ala OW; They really can't watch it. Masterful satire bites harder than the stern rhetoric dished out by Olbermann, and they would either be converted through understanding or killed outright by severe cognitive dissonance.

... stats from Nielsen Media Research to show that Stewart's viewers are not only smart, but more educated than O'Reilly's.

---

THE IDIOT JEFF:

Anyone that believes this lie is a downright fool.

------

The education level fact cited is well-established, really not rebuttable. Of course, facts mean absolutely nothing to Jeff. In fact, they send him running under his bed crying.

Of course, even if we did not have such a well-established fact, the mere circumstance that Jeff denies something is a strong indicia that it is correct. He has yet to be correct about anything, anything.

Yeah, Bill Maher is a real hero. While the World Trade Center Towers were still smoking, Bill was praising the hijackers. He called them courageous. Keep that in mind the next time you get the urge to call the man a patriot.

Yeah, Bill Maher is a real hero. While the World Trade Center Towers were still smoking, Bill was praising the hijackers. He called them courageous. Keep that in mind the next time you get the urge to call the man a patriot.

---

Of course, there is this little thing about context, isn't there? Maher was expressing his stunned disbelief that people would commit suicide for a cause. I wouldn't call that courage, but it does rather show the character of the people with whom we ought to be dealing. We could certainly have made much more progress, any progress, in the War Against Terrorism if we could say: "These people have a (mis-) guided belief in their (suspect) cause for which they are willing to die." In that sense, what Maher said has far more value than Hume, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, the Wiener, repeating the canard, "They'll greet us with flowers and open arms." Wanting to destroy your enemy is easy. Everyone wants that. It doesn't require thought or intelligence. Knowing your enemy is far more difficult. It requires much of us, but it is the most effective way to destroy your enemy. Of course, our lack of knowledge is not entirely our fault. We lacked and still lacked men and women in the Administration to lead us. When the truth would have been far more powerful and effective, they lied to us with the willing cooperation of O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, the Wiener. Our biggest fault was not in being more discerning about the people to whom we listen.

I wouldn't trade a single comedian, pothead or ESPN reject for every toe-sucker, falafel fetisher, Viagra smuggler/Hillbilly Heroin addict, randy whore you have, so there!!!
---
You surprise me Brandon. You're not one of the ignorant ones on this post, yet you fail to appreciate that satire is a very complex, sophisticated form of comedy. The comedian and the audience are presumed to already know the underlying fact(s) being satirized. Taking that fact and putting a nuance on it results in comedy (or in the case of Dickens, et al, tragedy). In that sense, it isn't surprising that regular Daily Show viewers are far more intelligent and better informed than regular O'Reilly viewers. The Daily Show viewers have already gathered news and information from a variety of souces, the NYT, the WaPo, the WSJ, CNN, BBC, WS, etc., and can appreciate a nuanced representation.

By contrast, an O'Reilly viewer is gathering his or her initial information solely from a commenator and seems not to be discerning enough to ferret out comment from fact.

I suspect the typical O'Reilly viewer is more into slapstick, a very undemanding form or comedy for the audience (the physical aspects can be demanding for the comedian). For example, I am confident that Jeff breaks into uncontrolled laughter at each and every fart joke he hears.

In 2006, a study published by Indiana University tried to compare the substantive amount of information of the Daily Show against primetime network news broadcasts. Julia R. Fox, an assistant professor of telecommunications at the university, showed in her study, "No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign"[8] (to be published in the summer of 2007), that when it comes to substance, there is little difference between the Daily Show and other news outlets. By using coverage and footage of the 2004 Presidential Election, she analyzes and compares both communication media. What she found was that neither actually offers more, SINCE BOTH PROGRAMS ARE MORE FOCUSED ON THE NATURE OF "INFOTAINMENT" AND RATINGSs, making them both "equal" in content.[9]

Geez, you mean the Daily Show is about ratings and infotainment and not accurate news and information?

Hmm, perhaps this explains the morons, er, fine folks who like Countdown?

Furthermore:
The analysis indicates that the Daily Show offered more humor than substance in their coverage, but that same study also found that the typical network coverage preferred to offer more hype than any real political substance.[10] The study seems to indicate that either the Daily Show has become a legitimate 'news source' or the mainstream media has ceased to be one.[11] Julia Fox states that "In an absolute sense, we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, BECAUSE NEITHER ONE IS PARTICULARLY SUBSTANTIVE. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."

Of course, even if we did not have such a well-established fact, the mere circumstance that Jeff denies something is a strong indicia that it is correct. He has yet to be correct about anything, anything.

Posted by: at May 28, 2007 10:47 PM

A very disgruntled olbyloon, indeed. You have to wonder about someone who makes a fairly lengthy post about nothing with no facts, mentioning another posters name 15-20 times in that single post, what the point was. Wringing their hands the whole time, I'm sure and posting anon, to boot. Disgruntled, indeed. Keep me in stitches, please.

"LYNCHBURG, Va. — A 19-year-old Liberty University student was arrested late Monday night after Virginia cops found he had napalm-like devices that he may have been planning to use on protesters at Rev. Jerry Falwell's funeral, FOX News confirmed."

I didn't see the word "terrorist" in this Fox News story - only a statement that the bomb this Christian insurgent made was "not very destructive". Where has te coverage been since?

What about the white Okie youth arrested last year attempting to board a passenger plan with a pipe-bomb, who was let off the hook ($1000 bail) by the Republican former Mayor of Oklahoma CIty, who vouched for him as just a precoscious scamp? (http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?id=3072&siteSection=5)

And what about those wing-nuts in Tennessee who got busted a whle back with a briefcase-bomb factory, with intent to kill minorities?

Hell, Fox News didn't even cover these last two stories, if their own site's search engine is reliable.

Anybody aware of any coverage regard Eric Rudolf's case following his arest?

Fox News does sport coverage of Luis Posada - the right-wing Cuban terrorist supported and protected by the Bush family for decades; but they present the lie that Posada was acquitted in the Venezuelan courts of a 1976 airliner bombing. He is currently in US custody in Florida, and his extradition sought by the Venezuelans is being blocked because he might be tortured. There's a first for the Bush admininstration!

Sorry, Olby: Al Gore already joined Larry King for an hour and that interview was rebroadcast this past weekend. Looks like you're second string yet again.
Posted by: at May 29, 2007 2:34 PM

As well as an hour with Charlie Rose. Olberdouche loves Al Gore, proudly bringing his college-aged girlfriend to Al's book signing last year. She was very impressed (Hint to Olbermann---keep her away from Clinton).

When Olby made his comments congratulating himself for having Imus fired that struck something inside of me. I was so angry with MSNBC and Keith. In the past I would watch Keith on and off feeling his program was not really “news” – kinda like Colbert Report. I thought Keith was a bit of a bully, but still something would anger me personally about Keith. Then the Imus story broke. I am big on freedom of speech. Suddenly it seemed like I had this vendetta against Keith. I don’t care about either Imus or Keith really but still I almost took pleasure in putting Keith down -- finding Keith on all his faults. That was wrong of me in one sense. For that I’m sorry.

I read 2 different newspapers, watch BBC as well as my American news to try to filter through it all. Still personalities such as Keith both attracted and repelled me. I guess that’s what it’s all about isn’t it? I came across this website in my trying to understand Keith. The site has its good points and bad points – both fair and unfair to Keith and his (cough) reporting.

I’ve finally calmed down about Keith. The verdict; I don’t think I trust Keith as a newsman. Sorry Keith, I trust you for my news like I trust Colbert. You make me laugh but it’s not either the truth or a lie isn’t it? Still I laughed so I guess that counts for something. I took Keith’s show off my TIVO as of Monday. I cannot in good conscious say Keith's show is real news.

Keith about your sports casting, either be a good one or be nothing at all. You want to do it all I know but you’re spreading yourself thin. Secondly Keith, what ever about your personal life, you know the truth and you know what’s what. You’re not a child but keep in mind Kathy still is. But whatever with you two, good luck, I mean it. Next, forgive your father or at least come to terms with him. I know he loves you deep down. Finally Keith, love yourself. I doubt you ever have. For that I’m sorry. I can see you are human with real hurt in both how you live your life and speak to those around you. I wish you could see that there are those that really do care and love you. As one human to another I know you hurt Keith I’m sad to say I can read it on your face.

Where to begin? I watched Al Gore's Larry King interview and I came out of it with a very strong opinion about him. The incident went as so. Larry King asked Al Gore about his opinion on the candidates. He asked about Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John Edwards, and I think, Chris Dodd. They all got fair answers.

After that, Larry King asked Al Gore about his opinion on Conservative presidential candidates. Want to know how he described them? He lumped them all together! Rather than being gracefull about it, he chose to say something to the effect of 'since they all do not want to stand up to the War in Iraq, they are not viable candidates and will not win.' Excuse me, but (A) Why are you lumping all of the different R. candidates together? (B) Why not just give a basic description on the candidates? (C) I am sure there is an issue that the democrats are all wrong on in Al Gore's eyes. They did not get any venom for that. (D) What ever happened to give and take? Where some one is supposedly wrong you tell them that they are wrong, not shun them. I thought that Al Gore was benevolent. Apparently, he is just as immature as albeit. Nothing has really changed in these 7 years.

Ultimately, he had to answer questions about the Republican candidates. John Rudy Giuliani got the first question. Al Gore said that Rudy Giuliani needed to fortify his "base". A knee-jerk specist answer. Why isn't that Rudy Giuliani can not reach out to Independant Moderates, or Libretarians, or even Liberals? Why is it that every conservative has to get pigeonholed into having to please their base? Because the person is Conservative, he has to concentrate on his most radical cliche`. I do not think so. Rudy Giuliani is indeed able to appeal to the whole entire nation, and do not let bunkers like Al GOre ever tell you otherwise.

Similar answers for John McCain, but I think that Mitt Romney got the least stereotypically demonsterative answer since Gore actually thought about his answers, versus being a meany. Although he used Mitt Romney to philosophisize on religion, at least, @ the very least, he gave true answers, and not swipes at them. Democrat candidates got thoughtfull and amicable answers. The Republican candidates got nothing but scorn and hostiality despite being just as great as an American as any other. For this, I am glad that Al Gore is not contemplating the presidency.

"...I know you hurt Keith I'm sad to say I can read it on your face..." Posted by: Judy at May 29, 2007 3:00 PM

No name hiders like you are why I'm taking his show off my TIVO in the first place.
Posted by: Judy at May 29, 2007 4:13 PM

Judyloon, get a grip on reality. An anon points out your creepy "Kathy Bates-like behavior" with your posting an "open letter to Keith Olbermann on Olbermann Watch, and you are taking HIS show off your TIVO because of "no name hiders?" who point this little "oddball" comment out. Maybe you should go back to watching Olbermann and stop commenting on OW.

This is such a minor piece it is pattently a waste of memory. Drudge said what he said about Keithy so quickly it dies not even come out as worthy of listening to. You would think that this website would have more of these, but they do not. Sadly, this is so.

Judy--the Olbyloon fan forum is located at keitholbermann.org. I'm sure all 5 of their members would welcome you with open arms. You seem like you'd fit in perfectly over there.
-----
You might want to be more circumspect in your advice. keitholbermann.org has admission requirements. It doesn't let just any lunatic with a PC post like olbermannwatch.com does.

>Judy--the Olbyloon fan forum is located at keitholbermann.org. I'm sure all 5 of their members would welcome you with open arms. You seem like you'd fit in perfectly over there.
Posted by: Brandon at May 29, 2007 4:38 PM

>Amen Brandon!
Posted by: CB at May 29, 2007 4:45 PM

For the first time the Olbsessed witness someone who may be more Olbsessed than they are.

So, Brandon, Factor, Cecelia, Grammie, Etc:

Judy's letter is what the whole convention of OW looks like to the rest of the world.

For the first time the Olbsessed witness someone who may be more Olbsessed than they are.

So, Brandon, Factor, Cecelia, Grammie, Etc:

Judy's letter is what the whole convention of OW looks like to the rest of the world.

Not very pretty, is it?

Posted by: LMAO at May 29, 2007 7:48 PM

I thought you said that we are "pretty" indeed to you in the sense that though you aren't here because you care about Olbermann....and you aren't here because you don't like conservatives.... you ARE jhere to be laughing your rear off.... as in....who loves ya, looney OWers, don't ever change...

Hey, I'll put up for comparision our "obsession"
with a guy who is currently a cultural pop-star next to the crazy step-child of your inexplicable obsession with we OWers.

Welcome to obsession asylum, LMAO. Just because you've put on a stolen lab coat, doesn't cause anyone to mistake you for a nonresident...

Issue #5 "It freezes the soul." Casualty statistics. General Pace soundbite that infuriates Keith Olbermann for an innocent typo. "You, sir, have no more credibility." He's no Paul Rieckhoff. Cindy "the defeat" Sheehan. Al Gore speaks out aboout Cindefeat. Internet is bringing back the writte word. (The Internet he invented...) Al Gore speaks in a syntax that makes Bush seem bad and Congress seem good. Votes "should be remedy." I have "remedy" right here:

Larry King asked Al Gore about his opinion on Conservative presidential candidates. Want to know how he described them? He lumped them all together! Rather than being gracefull about it, he chose to say something to the effect of 'since they all do not want to stand up to the War in Iraq, they are not viable candidates and will not win.' Excuse me, but (A) Why are you lumping all of the different R. candidates together? (B) Why not just give a basic description on the candidates? (C) I am sure there is an issue that the democrats are all wrong on in Al Gore's eyes. They did not get any venom for that. (D) What ever happened to give and take? Where some one is supposedly wrong you tell them that they are wrong, not shun them. I thought that Al Gore was benevolent. Apparently, he is just as immature as albeit. Nothing has really changed in these 7 years.
Ultimately, he had to answer questions about the Republican candidates. John Rudy Giuliani got the first question. Al Gore said that Rudy Giuliani needed to fortify his "base". A knee-jerk specist answer. Why isn't that Rudy Giuliani can not reach out to Independant Moderates, or Libretarians, or even Liberals? Why is it that every conservative has to get pigeonholed into having to please their base? Because the person is Conservative, he has to concentrate on his most radical cliche`. I do not think so. Rudy Giuliani is indeed able to appeal to the whole entire nation, and do not let bunkers like Al GOre ever tell you otherwise.
Similar answers for John McCain, but I think that Mitt Romney got the least stereotypically demonsterative answer since Gore actually thought about his answers, versus being a meany. Although he used Mitt Romney to philosophisize on religion, at least, @ the very least, he gave true answers, and not swipes at them. Democrat candidates got thoughtfull and amicable answers. The Republican candidates got nothing but scorn and hostiality despite being just as great as an American as any other. For this, I am glad that Al Gore is not contemplating the presidency.

Al Gore then goes to say something posetive about George W. Bush (to get himself out of a past-tense problem...) He also shifts the blame to Cheney to prevent the wrath of the Special Comment! Gore, Gore, Gore. I am so glad you are not running. Lots of buzzwords, lots of Buzzphrases. George Washington "laid down a prohibition against torture." Really? In Iraq?

Issue #4 Keith Olbermann keeps us in the lockbox. Keith Olbermann does ask a question that I want asked. 'Why not run for president and solve the world's problems?' Good job there, Keith Olbermann. I sincerely mean that.

Newsbreaker: "Toll elephant" with criminals a & b.

Issue #3 Zogby poll. Man against man. The man? Chris Cillizza. "Many of the [Republican] candidates [are] trying to be like Ronald Reagan." What about all of the contendors that are trying to be like J.F.K.? Like John Kerry? Or Jimmy Carter, like John Edwards? Or like F.D.R., like the rest of them? Chris Cilliza seems to choke, but not before he gets in a real good laugh riot. Terrorism and national security are "wedge issues" that "Republicans care about." Security is the most important issue, and it does not go down party lines (I predict a Newsbuster or Media Matters note on that one...)

Intro: Ohhhh! Keith Olbermann finaly learned Elizabeth Hasselbeck's name! She is not "the other lady" nor is she "some other". Was he using flashcards?

Issue #2 News that I am glad that Countdowen covered, even if it is canned. Fair is fair again. The biohazard went through many deifferent places, knowing he had XTD Tuberculosis. I do not know how some people live with themselves.

W.P.I.T.W. Paul Wolfowitz. I am sure he will be a favorite in future episodes of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Female Buchanan. Sean Hannity. BONUS! A snip at Mitt Romney.